June 6, 2008

A Missy Hart Update

Remember this? It was from February of this year and it pointed out that while Melissa Hart had declared her intention to run for Representative Jason Altmire's seat a few months earlier, her website hadn't been updated. In fact it hadn't been updated since before the 2006 election.

First off, her website's been updated. Oh, frabjous day!

In any event, Dennis Roddy (who, while usually shorter than me, is still wicked-smaht) has a compare and contrast column on the Altmire-Hart race.

Some highlights:

Two years out of Congress and looking for a way back in, former Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Bradford Woods, says she now wishes she'd cast a few budget votes differently, but believes a head-to-head comparison with the man who ousted her now works in her favor.

"I think we'll now have an opportunity with a record and a record to actually see two very different people," Ms. Hart said. "This is a choice election, not a change election."

Ms. Hart's comments came yesterday during a sometimes-contentious meeting with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board.

Must've been a fun meeting. That middle sentence came as a surprise. Seeing that Hart's party's presidential candidate has said otherwise. From Time.com:
Tuesday night, John McCain, who turns 72 in August, began making the case that the answer to all those questions is yes. With Barack Obama running on the slogan "Change We Can Believe In," the four-term Senator from Arizona might have chosen to avoid the reform motif entirely, to run instead on "experience" or "leadership." But he and his campaign have decided they have no choice but to embrace the idea that voters want change above all. They also believe that Obama is the chimera of change, while McCain can actually deliver it. "This is, indeed, a change election," McCain said in New Orleans, the second time in two months that he's chosen that Katrina-ravaged city to make a point of distinguishing himself from George W. Bush. "But the choice is between the right change and the wrong change; between going forward and going backward." [emphasis added]
Perhaps Missy didn't get the memo that day.

In any case, it's still an uphill battle for Missy.

Point one - According to the Cook Report from June of 2008 detailing competitive House races, the Representative Altmire's district (PA-04) is still in the "leans Democratic" (meaning it's a competitive district, but the Democrats have the advantage).

Point two - According to the OpenSecrets.Org, as of April 2 of this year, Altmire has raised $1.6 million of which he's spent $359,000 leaving him with about $1.3 million cash on hand. Hart, on the other hand, has raised only $529,000 and spent $143,000 leaving her with $393,000 cash on hand.

He's got a tad over $1.3 million, she's got a skosh below $400,000. It's pretty close to a 4-to-1 ratio in funds.

Can Missy expect any help from the NRCC? Sad to say, but probably not. According (again) to Opensecrets.org, the NRCC has only about $6.7 million on hand while the DCCC (it's counterpart from the Democratic Party) has a whopping $45.3 million on hand.

That's about a 7-to-1 advantage to the Democrats.

10 comments:

  1. Y'know, maybe it'd be best if she just held some town hall meetings where she drinks a bottle of whiskey and just lets things take their course from there. It's not like it could hurt.

    - Shawn

    ReplyDelete
  2. Look here for a picture of Missy at one of those meetings.

    She sits with Dick Cheney where they were gonna "save" Social Security.

    Nice going, Missy!

    ReplyDelete
  3. John K. says: There you go again. Democrats are not opposed to corporate fund raising. They are glad to take money from big business. They only want to launch investigations when the corporate money and the large differences in fund raising goes in favor of the Republicans. Similar to how they whined about it in 2000 and 2004. JIm Burns are you listening. And just like the previous blogs, LOL LOL, about how some Senate Intel committee said Bush lied, LMAO, investigations are only launched and reform demanded when the advantage goes in favor of the Republicans. The DCCC has all the money this time around. And you brag about it. If the NRCC had all the money you would be demanding an invesigation and saying how two Republican Senators voted in favor of it. LMAO at just how easy it is to catch you liberals being, well liberal. LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  4. And yet another nearly incomprehensible comment from John K.

    (Note to John: In this context "incomprehensible" is not a good thing.)

    What did any of that have to do with Melissa Hart?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous 9:44

    You have a new form of John K. bashing, no longer the "look @ my pee pee, or Andre, or INCREDIBLE STUPID QUOTE". Now it's And yet another nearly incomprehensible/stupid/worthless comment from John K.
    Your obsession with marginalizing John K. is only making his point. Please stop you're embarrassing.
    S.S.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John K. says: Stop? My posts are hitting home! In 2004 all Dean the Olbermouth left did was whine about how much money the Republicans had. And all Obama has done is whine about lobby money going to finance campaigns. And now look at you, you brag about how much money Altmire has and how the DCCC is flush with cash. From who, may I ask? The Chinese minimum wage people who funded Hillary's Clinton campaign? Or the poor folks rallying to aid of Obama (who is so broke he can't pay his student loans.) LMAO At how dumb a lefty has to be to go thru life. LOL By the way did anyone in here look up Major Andre and come to the realization that I was right. That he was hung by Gen. Washington without a trial for spying. If you come to that realization then you might realize Gitmo has been done before and with success.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Obsessing about marginalizing John K." is not making his point for him. It's actually not doing any such thing of the kind, because it is often quite difficult to decipher just what John K.'s point happens to be. I mean, quite frankly, much of it is pure fantasy and quite often a conflation of subjective opinion with objective fact.

    I suppose its nice to feign nobility by coming to his defense, but it is perhaps telling that his juvenile overuse of "LOL LMAO ROFL" and consistent blanket insults are not considered "embarassing." Yet Anon 9:44 is called out for what is not an incendiary statement but his simple opinion that John K. has added nothing to the dicussion, chiefly because he's not addressing what's being discussed.

    He simply makes statements that aren't true and often deliberately insulting and antagonistic. Add on "LOL LOL LMAO you stupid liberals crack me up" and you have what is apparently considered by some to be a mature statement that should be heard.

    And he is actually wrong about Major Andre:

    At Washington's order, on September 29, 1780, a board was convened to examine and try Major John Andre. Andre's testimony conflicted on a major, damning point with evidence presented in letters from Arnold, Clinton, and Robinson.

    This was actually pointed out to him on Dec. 28th, 2007 at 7:54AM by Not Shitrock: Here

    More here:

    The board consisted of Major Generals Nathanael Greene (the presiding officer), Lord Stirling, Arthur St. Clair, Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette, Robert Howe, Steuben, Brigadier Generals Samuel H. Parsons, James Clinton, Henry Knox, John Glover, John Paterson, Edward Hand, Jedediah Huntington, John Stark, and Judge-Advocate-General John Laurance. On September 29, 1780, the board found André guilty of being behind American lines "under a feigned name and in a disguised habit", and that "Major André, Adjutant-General to the British army, ought to be considered as a Spy from the enemy, and that agreeable to the law and usage of nations, it is their opinion, he ought to suffer death."

    A reasonable person is expected to tolerate this exaggerated correlation between Major Andre, a single spy hung in accordance with the rules of war at that time(warfare was a very regulated affair at that time), with the imprisonment of individuals in violation of current rules of war.

    It is simple ignorance to reference a period where warfare was a very formal affair to defend the abandonment of international treaties under Bush the Blunderer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John K. says: Ah but he was hanged. And by none other than George Washington. Just think of the outrage if Gen. Petreaus had ordered some Iraq terrorist hanged. In fact, we have yet to execute any of the terrorists in Gitmo because you lefties want a trial based on my rights. Did you folks read anything about WW1. We shot prisoners there also. Yah, US troops did this without a trial. And a Democrat named Wilson was running the show. My point? Whether it comes to cmapaign contributions and their sources or terrorists the Democrats really don't care as long as they are getting the lions share and are in power. See how easy it is to expose liberal hypocracy. LOL LOL They usually provide the evidence for you. LMAO So Altmire has more money than Hart. Who cares he is a Democrat. LMAO Why investigate where it comes from. LMAO That is only for Republicans. LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  9. You can't weasel out of this one, John K.

    Your initial point was that he was hanged WITHOUT A TRIAL. If my memory serves you were complaining about us "lefties" demanding constitutional rights for prisoners when even George Washington didn't give them to Major Andre (BECAUSE HE WAS HANGED WITHOUT A TRIAL).

    There are TWO things about this:

    1 - You're SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG about the trial thing (even when shown REPEATEDLY that you're wrong). You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, as they say.

    2 - Only the historically ignorant (such as yourself) could think that there would be Constitutional rights during the Revolutionary War. When did the war end? When was the Constitution ratified? How could anyone have any Constitutional rights BEFORE the constitution was ratified?

    Go back to school or read a history book or two, John. You really need it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Haha...he cites WWI, a war whose atrocities led to the development and eventaul ratification of the Geneva Conventions...fucking hysterical...

    ReplyDelete